The Eternal U.N

‘One thing is certain,” runs the magnificent old journalistic cliché, “things will never be the same again.” The correct response, usually, is a dry “Oh, really?” But the war that is about to burst upon us almost certainly justifies this prediction. The unique status of the United States as a quasi-imperial power; the Atlantic Alliance and NATO; relations with Russia, China, France, and Germany; the future of Iraq and other Middle Eastern regimes; nuclear proliferation; the world’s attitude toward “rogue states”; the war on terrorism—all are likely to be transformed by the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Will the war also transform that shimmering mirage of international comity on the East River, the United Nations? If the alternative is its own disappearance, the U.N. will certainly accept transformation. Ever since its inception in 1944, the U.N. has been a reflection of the prevailing international power struggle—a distorted reflection, to be sure, but a reflection nonetheless.

From 1948 to 1956, the U.N. was dominated by America and its allies—to the point that when the Soviets threatened to veto intervention in Korea in the Security Council, the U.S. persuaded the General Assembly to authorize it via a controversial and probably illegal “Uniting for Peace” resolution. From 1956 to circa 1968, the U.S. shifted sideways from its European allies to join the gaggle of newly arrived Third World states in condemning semi-colonial ventures such as Suez; there was some loose talk about America’s really being a “revolutionary” power.

About the Author

John O’Sullivan

John O’Sullivan is a senior fellow at National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

Featured Tags

‘One thing is certain,” runs the magnificent old journalistic cliché, “things will never be the same again.” The correct response, usually, is a dry “Oh, really?” But the war that is about to burst upon us almost certainly justifies this prediction. The unique status of the United States as a quasi-imperial power; the Atlantic Alliance and NATO; relations with Russia, China, France, and Germany; the future of Iraq and other Middle Eastern regimes; nuclear proliferation; the world’s attitude toward “rogue states”; the war on terrorism—all are likely to be transformed by the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Will the war also transform that shimmering mirage of international comity on the East River, the United Nations? If the alternative is its own disappearance, the U.N. will certainly accept transformation. Ever since its inception in 1944, the U.N. has been a reflection of the prevailing international power struggle—a distorted reflection, to be sure, but a reflection nonetheless.

From 1948 to 1956, the U.N. was dominated by America and its allies—to the point that when the Soviets threatened to veto intervention in Korea in the Security Council, the U.S. persuaded the General Assembly to authorize it via a controversial and probably illegal “Uniting for Peace” resolution. From 1956 to circa 1968, the U.S. shifted sideways from its European allies to join the gaggle of newly arrived Third World states in condemning semi-colonial ventures such as Suez; there was some loose talk about America’s really being a “revolutionary” power.